Failed twice

[Aunty Agony]

Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts?

Aunty Agony

The short answer to your question is yes, practically all are.  In addition to a numerical hand score, I have scored every chart I have run since 1995, almost twenty years now, with computer software.  Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes and most certainly has improved my accuracy.

Fascinating.  What software, and what does it do for you?

[quickfix]

so quickfix, you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement.Good luck brother! 

Yes, I know!  They cannot and will not ever be convinced.  They prefer to belly ache and kvetch about how unfair it is, their lives are ruined, they're emotionally scarred for life!  Of course they can always pay the Doug Williamses of the world for their "magic cures", hoping against hope that they get lucky, instead of coming to terms with the fact that they were less than truthful on their polys.  Funny, the parking lots of NSA, CIA, FBI, etc, are filled with cars.  How can that be?!?! All these employees got hired after failing their polys???  Not bloody likely.

[pailryder]

What software, and what does it do for you?

Aunty

The polygraph manufactures provide software for their own collection systems, to record and manage chart data.  And there are several copyrighted software available for purchase to score the collected data.  I have not collected a paper chart, of the type  depicted on the home page, in almost twenty years.

[Ex Member]

I have not collected a paper chart, of the typedepicted on the home page, in almost twenty years. 

This statement is irrelevant; digital and analog polygraph instruments produce the same charts.

[Ex Member]

Yes, I know!They cannot and will not ever be convinced. 

Please provide your argument that computerization has advanced your ability to detect deception. Please give specific details. I'm listening with an open mind, ready to be convinced.

[quickfix]

I'm listening with an open mind, ready to be convinced.

That's highly doubtful  Since you can't (or won't)comprehend the obvious differences between analog and computerized polygraph, which is only one small aspect of polygraph advancement, explaining advancement in methodology to you would be like explaining the west coast offense to a monkey,  and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[Doug Williams]

I'm listening with an open mind, ready to be convinced.

That's highly doubtful  Since you can't (or won't)comprehend the obvious differences between analog and computerized polygraph, which is only one small aspect of polygraph advancement, explaining advancement in methodology to you would be like explaining the west coast offense to a monkey,  and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

"Advancement in methodology?"  Are you trying to tell us that you can accurately detect deception by measuring nervousness - that there is an "advancement in methodology" that will now allow you to determine with certainty that a specific nervous (fight or flight) reaction ALWAYS indicates deception? 

A simple yes or no to this question will suffice to educate this monkey.  Is there any such thing as a reaction that ALWAYS indicates deception? 

[Ex Member]

That's highly doubtfulSince you can't (or won't)comprehend the obvious differences between analog and computerized polygraph

This is where you are wrong Quickie, I have sufficient aptitude in this area. Perhaps you can elaborate on the sample rate or which DSP filters are used, or even how the Remez Algorithm may come into play. Please enlighten me with your insight as to how digital is superior to analog.

[Aunty Agony]

...there are several copyrighted software available for purchase to score the collected data...

Yes -- I'm asking: have you purchased any, which ones have you used, and what did they do for you?

[pailryder]

AA

The Objective Scoring System Version 3 (OSS3) is my current favorite.  I use it after I hand score as a backup.  The call is usually the same, but sometimes not.  Occasionally the software disagree with each other.   Most of my clients, who are now much younger than me, seem to prefer to trust it over my hand score.

Although Arkhangelsk disagrees, and I do see his point, as a longtime user, I see a great deal of difference in an ink on paper chart and a digital chart.  Think of the difference between a polaroid photograph and a digital photograph.  The same photo?  Yes, maybe.  But the digital is much easier to crop, zoom in and out, eliminate redeye, adjust color and light.  Things that were impossible with a polaroid.  Measurement of some chart features, such as relative line length, very difficult on paper, is a snap for the software which offer digital calipers. 

My analog recorded four channels, my digital records eight and has in time audio/video recording.

[pailryder]

A simple yes or no to this question will suffice to educate this monkey.Is there any such thing as a reaction that ALWAYS indicates deception?

No.  There is no certainty in this world.  Well, there is one reaction that ALMOST ALWAYS indicates deception.  We call it a confession.

[quickfix]

Well, there is one reaction that ALMOST ALWAYS indicates deception.We call it a confession. 

That's what we call it too.

[Doug Williams]

Well, there is one reaction that ALMOST ALWAYS indicates deception.We call it a confession. 

That's what we call it too.

So, we are all in agreement.  The polygraph is not a "lie detector", it is just a prop a good interrogator uses to coerce a person into confessing.

And it seems we also agree that, since there is no evidence that any reaction ALWAYS indicates deception, the polygraph operator should never call a person a liar unless that person has confessed.

I would further state that the confession obtained under duress is of dubious value.

Two recent cases in the news point out the problems with using the psychological billy club (polygraph) to get a "confession".

Here are two recent examples of blatant abuse perpetuated by these thugs/bullies aka polygraphers!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-chicago-aldermen-ok-66-million-to-settle-lawsuits-20140331,0,862549.story

http://wrvo.org/post/would-videotaping-interrogations-help-false-confessions

This is exactly why I have been fighting the use of this insidious Orwellian instruments of torture called the polygraph and why I have been trying for almost forty years to stop the bullies and thugs who administer these so-called "lie detector tests".

The polygraph test is the most important test any of you will ever take. Until you take one, you have no idea how traumatic and grueling it can be - it is that way for a reason. The polygraphers want you to be so frightened that you "spill your guts". In fact, many people are so intimidated that they make statements that the polygrapher will use to incriminate them - some people are so frightened that they confess to things they haven't even done!

There are millions of people who have been falsely branded as liars, simply because they had a nervous reaction when they answered a question. They have had their lives ruined because they believed the lie that the polygraph was reliable and accurate as a "lie detector", and that the polygrapher was an honorable professional who would treat them fairly. They found out the hard way that the polygrapher was just an interrogator - that the polygraph was just a prop he used to frighten and intimidate them. And worse yet, that the polygrapher could accuse them of lying without any evidence to prove that accusation and they could not challenge or appeal his decision! That's not fair, it is not the way things should be done in this country, but that's the way it is - and that's the way it will continue to be until we put a stop to it!  Shame on anyone who administers these "tests" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism!

[quickfix]

It's a prop to you, a valuable diagnostic tool to us.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

[George W. Maschke]

It's a prop to you, a valuable diagnostic tool to us.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

The fact that federal agents  attempted to entrap Doug Williams and created a watch list from the customer records they seized from him suggests otherwise.